The experiments of Mr Rowbotham

  • 65 Replies
  • 6348 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2007, 01:30:48 PM »
What I am so shocked at Tom is that you are willing to implicate hundred if not thousands of people of lying to cover up the FE conspiracy, but you are not willing to consider the possibility that one person (Rowbotham) lied about his results.

Who's lying?

Every single observation is perfectly explainable on a Flat Earth.

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2007, 01:38:40 PM »
What I am so shocked at Tom is that you are willing to implicate hundred if not thousands of people of lying to cover up the FE conspiracy, but you are not willing to consider the possibility that one person (Rowbotham) lied about his results.

Who's lying?

Every single observation is perfectly explainable on a Flat Earth.
Minus among other things him being able to see the north star, as we concluded that that would disprove the flat earth.
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1539
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2007, 02:12:41 PM »
Quote
Einstein was religious too. He always talked about God. Should we deny his work as well? Because as everyone knows, everyone who believes in the existence of a God is an inherent liar and a cheat.

That wasn't my point. Einstein may have been religious, but to his work it was for the most part irrelevant. Rowbotham read the scripture as evidence of a Flat Earth, then set out to prove it. His mind was not open about his possible findings, even if he was truthful he may have introduced a bias into the results. The point I was making was that Rowbotham's theories are a poor attempt to corroborate scientifically what he interpreted as the word of the Bible. He is untrustworthy because he has a vested interest in the outcome (the truth of his Holy Book).
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2007, 02:41:41 PM »
Quote
That wasn't my point. Einstein may have been religious, but to his work it was for the most part irrelevant.

The workings of the universe are irrelevant to religion?

Quote
His mind was not open about his possible findings, even if he was truthful he may have introduced a bias into the results. The point I was making was that Rowbotham's theories are a poor attempt to corroborate scientifically what he interpreted as the word of the Bible. He is untrustworthy because he has a vested interest in the outcome (the truth of his Holy Book).

Dr. Rowbotham starts his work as an honest inquiry into the shape of the Earth, starting afresh without interpreting the results of experiments to any one particular theory or predisposition. Tests are tried and facts are collected without ascribing to any one existing theory. The entirety of Rowbotham's work is to let the results of an experiment speak for itself.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 02:48:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1539
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2007, 02:56:47 PM »
Quote
A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.

Therefore Rowbotham was not a Zetetic. Neither are you.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2007, 02:57:32 PM »

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.

Logic will not solve physics and chemistry.  
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2007, 03:11:39 PM »
Quote
A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.

Therefore Rowbotham was not a Zetetic. Neither are you.

After reading Earth Not a Globe, One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmology, I performed the experiments described in Dr. Rowbotham's original work and came to my own conclusion for the shape of the Earth. Each result suggested a flat earth.

Unlike you, my conviction does not rely on any external authority or presumption. I was able to connect the dots for myself and form my own conclusion.

Quote
Logic will not solve physics and chemistry.

Physics and Chemistry are constantly and forever changing, updating and reverting. Even the hard sciences are a loose collection of "maybe" and "what if."

Astronomy in particular is completely observational. Theories are contrived and molded into pre-existing ones. The lights in the sky are given meaning and turned into worlds upon which imaginative dreamers of the day can escape into. Every couple of months we will hear about astronomers discovering a new object in the night sky that "might" harbor life. Or maybe we will hear about a newly discovered object that "might" collide with us. Forever reaching, forever imagining, these astronomers are nothing more sophisticated fortune tellers.

Astronomy is just as bad as Astrology. Using science as any form of authority is hardly an argument.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 03:53:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1539
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2007, 03:34:39 PM »
What would you suggest as a replacement for science?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27205
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2007, 03:36:58 PM »
Quote
A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.

Therefore Rowbotham was not a Zetetic. Neither are you.

After reading Earth Not a Globe, One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmology, I performed the experiments described in Dr. Rowbotham's original work and came to my own conclusion for the shape of the Earth.

Unlike you, my conviction does not rely on any external authority or presumption. I was able to connect the dots for myself and form my own conclusion.

Quote
Logic will not solve physics and chemistry.

Physics and Chemistry are constantly and forever changing, updating and reverting. Even the hard sciences are a loose collection of "maybe" and "what if."

Astronomy in particular is completely observational. Theories are contrived and molded into pre-existing ones. The lights in the sky are given meaning and turned into worlds upon which imaginative dreamers of the day can escape into. Every couple of months we will hear about astronomers discovering a new object in the night sky that "might" harbor life. Or maybe we will hear about a newly discovered object that "might" collide with us. Forever reaching, forever imagining, these astronomers are nothing more sophisticated fortune tellers.

Astronomy is just as bad as Astrology. Using science as any form of authority is hardly an argument.

I agree 100% with everything in this post.  It's time to stop relying on the dogma of "science" and trust our own observations.  That's how I concluded that the world was flat.

?

FEbeliever90

  • 39
  • Galileo never existed
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2007, 03:51:02 PM »
You do realize that when you back up Tom your really just subtracting from his statement.
NASA employees use the "space program" as a way to pocket billions of dollars from the government....there you have it. Motive.

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2007, 03:57:15 PM »
Quote
A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.

Therefore Rowbotham was not a Zetetic. Neither are you.

After reading Earth Not a Globe, One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmology, I performed the experiments described in Dr. Rowbotham's original work and came to my own conclusion for the shape of the Earth. Each result suggested a flat earth.

Unlike you, my conviction does not rely on any external authority or presumption. I was able to connect the dots for myself and form my own conclusion.

Quote
Logic will not solve physics and chemistry.

Physics and Chemistry are constantly and forever changing, updating and reverting. Even the hard sciences are a loose collection of "maybe" and "what if."

Astronomy in particular is completely observational. Theories are contrived and molded into pre-existing ones. The lights in the sky are given meaning and turned into worlds upon which imaginative dreamers of the day can escape into. Every couple of months we will hear about astronomers discovering a new object in the night sky that "might" harbor life. Or maybe we will hear about a newly discovered object that "might" collide with us. Forever reaching, forever imagining, these astronomers are nothing more sophisticated fortune tellers.

Astronomy is just as bad as Astrology. Using science as any form of authority is hardly an argument.
Shut the fuck up you uneducated fool.  Maybe you should by a telescope and see for yourself how stupid the shit you spew out of your mouth is.
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27205
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2007, 04:07:48 PM »
You do realize that when you back up Tom your really just subtracting from his statement.

How's that?  ???

Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2007, 04:59:38 PM »
Astronomy in particular is completely observational.

Oh, the hilarity of irony.  ;D
Best SNL skit ever: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I predict Michale Crichton's next book will be based on the Flat Earth Society.

Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2007, 06:28:08 PM »
Who's lying?

Ummm, how about the dozen people who landed on the moon, and looked back at the Earth, and saw that it was a sphere?

How about the radio astronomers who have performed radar ranging on several planets, and shown them to be millions of kilometers away, not thousands (as FE claims.)  You implied that these people were liars when I first brought it up in another topic.

Who allegedly sent those probes into space and bounced radio waves off of the planets?

That's right.

However you slice it, if the Earth is flat, a number of people must be aware of it's true shape, and be lying about it.  I find it much more likely that one man 150 years ago is the liar.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2007, 09:00:06 PM »
Quote
Shut the fuck up you uneducated fool.  Maybe you should by a telescope and see for yourself how stupid the shit you spew out of your mouth is.

I have a telescope in my back yard. It's a computerized Celestron NexStar. When I use it to look at the lights of the night sky I am simply looking at centers of action, throwing down light, and chemical products upon the plane of the earth.

None of it means anything unless I apply meaning to it. The stars don't become light years away unless I assume that the earth as a globe in parallax equations derived by astronomers. If I triangulate under the assumption of a Flat Earth the stars in the sky become much closer. I am simply an observer to the Cosmos - watching a fanciful dance of bodies scrolling across the night sky.

Quote
Ummm, how about the dozen people who landed on the moon, and looked back at the Earth, and saw that it was a sphere?

Sustained space travel is impossible. NASA never sent man to the moon. With all of the criticism against NASA, you should know better than to bring up the moon landing as "proof."

The moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood set: http://i9.tinypic.com/6fkcdmq.jpg

Quote
How about the radio astronomers who have performed radar ranging on several planets, and shown them to be millions of kilometers away, not thousands (as FE claims.)  You implied that these people were liars when I first brought it up in another topic.

Radar ranging is something of an uncertain mode. I would have to peer review the exact programming of those multi-billion dollar radar arrays before I accept it as any form of evidence. Since the astronomical unit is wrong the computer doing the ranging could very easily be interpreting the signals incorrectly. It would be like a policeman's radar gun programmed to think feet are miles.

That sort of technology is so far out of reach for the average person to reproduce anyway. You might as well ask me to build a rocket ship and send myself into space.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 09:10:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2007, 09:12:49 PM »
I have a telescope in my back yard. It's a computerized Celestron NexStar. When I use it to look into the night sky I am simply looking at centers of action, throwing down light, and chemical products upon the plane of the earth.

None of it means anything unless I apply meaning to it. The stars don't become light years away unless I assume that the earth as a globe in parallax equations derived by astronomers. If I triangulate under the assumption of a Flat Earth the stars in the sky become much closer. I am simply an observer to the Cosmos - watching a fanciful dance of bodies scrolling across the night sky.
The stars become light years away when you look at there red/blue shifting.  We can tell they are moving away at extreme high speeds.  Thus making them really far way.  How do you explain that? 

Quote

Sustained space travel is impossible. NASA never sent man to the moon. With all of the criticism against NASA, you should know better than to bring up the moon landing as "proof."

The moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood set: http://i9.tinypic.com/6fkcdmq.jpg
How many links must I post before you realize the moon landing was real? 

Quote
Radar ranging is something of an uncertain mode. I would have to peer review the exact programming of those multi-billion dollar radar arrays before I accept it as any form of evidence. Since the astronomical unit is wrong the computer doing the ranging could very easily be interpreting the signals incorrectly. It would be like a policeman's radar gun programmed to think feet are miles.
Radar range finders do not use the AU.  Its a simple clock inside.  It times the time it takes for the beam to go there and back. 
Quote
That sort of technology is so far out of reach for the average person to reproduce anyway. You might as well ask me to build a rocket ship and send myself into space.
Didn't that guy do it in a movie?  If the sun is only 700 miles away it would be so easy to get to.  We have rockets that go further then that.  Of course they go out of the atmoshpere and then come back in some time later. 
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #46 on: May 18, 2007, 09:26:14 PM »
Sustained space travel is impossible. NASA never sent man to the moon. With all of the criticism against NASA, you should know better than to bring up the moon landing as "proof."

The moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood set: http://i9.tinypic.com/6fkcdmq.jpg

I didn't bring it up as a proof.  Read the last posts.

I expressed surprise at your inability to belive that Rowbotham was lying when you were willing to implicate so many others of doing so:

What I am so shocked at Tom is that you are willing to implicate hundred if not thousands of people of lying to cover up the FE conspiracy, but you are not willing to consider the possibility that one person (Rowbotham) lied about his results.

You asked who would have to be lying to cover up the shape of the Earth.

Who's lying?
 

 I mentioned that the purveyors of the moon landing "hoax" would have to be lying.

You seem to have answered your own question.

So I ask again:  How can you rationally implicate hundreds of people in a conspiracy, but be unable to consider the concept that a single man might not tell the truth?

« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 09:41:35 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2007, 09:40:17 PM »
Radar ranging is something of an uncertain mode. I would have to peer review the exact programming of those multi-billion dollar radar arrays before I accept it as any form of evidence. Since the astronomical unit is wrong the computer doing the ranging could very easily be interpreting the signals incorrectly. It would be like a policeman's radar gun programmed to think feet are miles.

Yes, there is an uncertain mode, as there is in all measurements.

But these measurements would have to be off by a factor of a thousand to even get close to the range of FE's numbers.

With the planets, radar ranging produces times that are so long (several minutes) that even a person with a stopwatch couldn't get error bars that were that big!

Unless you implicate radio astronomers in the conspiracy, the planets (or at least Venus, Mercury and the Sun) must be millions of kilometers away from us.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 09:43:58 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2007, 09:52:06 PM »
I have a telescope in my back yard. It's a computerized Celestron NexStar. When I use it to look at the lights of the night sky I am simply looking at centers of action, throwing down light, and chemical products upon the plane of the earth.
Have you all noticed how Tom Bishop got tired of being told that he has to buy a telescope and see things for himself, and all of a sudden, he claims to have one? That is a simple rhetorical trick: since we cannot go and check his back yard, he can confidently lie about his supposed telescope.

Of course, with his telescope he can easily make hour-by-hour measurements of right ascension and declination of the sun and other celestial objects, and tell us the latitude and longitude of his back yard. That is more than enough information to demonstrate or disprove the "hovering sun" and "hovering moon and stars" hypothesis: with a little bit of trigonometry and your data we can all calculate the exact effect of the distortion that makes all of us think the sun goes below the horizon at sunset.

Please, either confess you do not have a telescope, or confess your abilities with mathematics are not enough to use the very precise measurements you can make with your own telescope. Otherwise, you could easily make your own measurements and share them with all of us, and we can even help you with the mathematics and the optical effects that the atmosphere could have on the apparent position of the stellar objects, thereby creating solid evidence for your FE hypothesis.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27205
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2007, 09:58:27 PM »
I have a telescope in my back yard. It's a computerized Celestron NexStar. When I use it to look at the lights of the night sky I am simply looking at centers of action, throwing down light, and chemical products upon the plane of the earth.

Pure poetry.  This is why this man is such a hero to me.  And that picture?  Living, breathing proof that the moon landing was a hoax.  Once again, Tom Bishop pwns the REers on this board. :D

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6275
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2007, 10:09:05 PM »

Pure poetry.  This is why this man is such a hero to me.  And that picture?  Living, breathing proof that the moon landing was a hoax.  Once again, Tom Bishop pwns the REers on this board. :D

What picture?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27205
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2007, 10:24:04 PM »
Quote
The moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood set: http://i9.tinypic.com/6fkcdmq.jpg

Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #52 on: May 18, 2007, 10:26:16 PM »
Quote
The moon landing was filmed on a Hollywood set: http://i9.tinypic.com/6fkcdmq.jpg

From the FAQ:

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.
Edit: PLEASE NOTE This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF


So, FErs are allowed to use them, but RErs aren't? Makes sense as to why Tom believes in a Flat Earth.
Best SNL skit ever: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I predict Michale Crichton's next book will be based on the Flat Earth Society.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27205
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #53 on: May 18, 2007, 10:37:57 PM »
 :o

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #55 on: May 18, 2007, 11:04:57 PM »
Quote
So, FErs are allowed to use them, but RErs aren't? Makes sense as to why Tom believes in a Flat Earth.

You are free to use whatever images you want in your arguments. It just doesn't conclusively "prove" anything.

Quote
I sure get tired of non educated people.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm
http://www.clavius.org/

The explanations to most of those questions are hardly satisfactory.

For example; this appears on one of the links:

The following image is from Bill Dines' post #820839. He makes the comment "Two Apollo 17 photos that defy the laws of physics. How does a mountain appear bigger when you move further away from it?"

http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/jfk/A17bgMT.jpg

Did NASA somehow pick up the lander and move it closer to the mountain sometime in the duration of the Apollo 17 mission, Sokarul? That's the only explanation I can see for it. No amount of zooming, and no amount of walking farther away would create such reverse discrepancies in mountain size.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 11:10:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2007, 11:11:46 PM »
the answer is already there.

Quote
The hill, or mountain, is not larger; it just looks that way because the picture is enlarged. This is obvious when one examines the fiducials (i.e. crosshairs). Below I have resized the right photo to match the fiducial spacing of the left photo.

 

The mountain doesn't look so out of place now, does it? Obviously, the right photo was taken from farther away than the left photo; this accounts for the smaller apparent size of the LM. In fact, we can estimate the distance between the LM and the camera using a little trigonometry. The cameras used on the Apollo missions yielded an angular distance of about 10 to 11 degrees between fiducial pairs. Therefore, we can estimate the angular height of the LM by comparing it to the fiducial spacing in each photo. I estimate about 17 degrees in the left photo and 2.5 degrees in the right photo. Since the actual overall height of the LM is 6.4 meters, we can calculate the distance between the LM and the camera. I calculate 21 m for the left photo and 147 m for the right photo. We have insufficient information to estimate the distance to the mountain, but it is likely much farther than it appears. On Earth, we are accustomed to seeing distance terrain obscured by haze, but this doesn't happen on the Moon due to the lack of an atmosphere. It is very likely the mountain could lie several kilometers away. Therefore, the 126 m difference in camera positions has a minimal effect on the appearance of the distant mountain.
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2007, 11:20:01 PM »
The author of that website says the Astronauts simply "zoomed out" to achieve the effect. The author goes on to provide an image that supposedly proves his point.

But the problem is that image he provided is just a shrunken image of the one on the right. The author does not demonstrate how a mountain can seem to vastly increase in altitude by zooming out.

If we zoomed in on the image on the right the height of the mountain would stay the same; the lander would be enlarged with the background of the mountain filling the screen. Take another look at the image provided and image zooming in with a camera on the picture on the right. The entire mountain wouldn't shrink - we'd just see a bigger and more resolute image of the lander with the mountain filling the background.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 11:25:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2007, 11:24:11 PM »
He didn't once say zoom even once.  Read again.  Its an optical illusion.
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: The experiments of Mr Rowbotham
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2007, 11:26:28 PM »
I did read it: His first sentence is "The hill, or mountain, is not larger; it just looks that way because the picture is enlarged."

I don't care how much enlarging of the image you do. That effect would not happen.